Proposal:Require oppose votes to include a reason
| Require oppose votes to include a reason | |
|---|---|
| Proposal status: | Proposed (under way) |
| Proposed by: | Spughetti |
| Draft started: | 2026-09-16 |
| RFC start: | 2026-09-20 |
No generative artificial intelligence was used in the writing of this proposal.
Context
Currently the Proposal process is unclear regarding whether including a reason for an oppose vote is an absolute requirement. It currently states the following: "People should not just vote 
Oppose, they should give a reason for their proposal, and/or (preferably) suggestions". There is no clear consensus as to whether this means a reason is mandatory or optional.
Proposal
- Require oppose votes to include a reason
- Consider oppose votes that don't include a reason to be invalid
○ For an oppose vote to be invalidated the proposer must send a reminder to include a reason in both the proposal's voting section and the voter's user talk page within 48 hours of the vote being cast. This is not required for oppose votes cast less than 48 hours before the end of the voting period, though it is still preferred.
○ Preferably the proposer would also send a private message on the forum, though because not all contributors have the same Wiki and forum nickname, and the fact that a third party can't verify whether a private message was sent, this is not a requirement.
- Define a reason within the context of a proposal to mean
a. Feedback that could be used to re-draft the proposal
b. The opinion that a proposal is unsalvageable, or that the proposed feature shouldn't be mapped in OSM at all
c. A reference to a given reason that fulfills criteria a or b
Vacatio legis
If passed, this rule change will only affect proposals that enter their voting period after this proposal's voting period has ended.
Rationale
- The reasons included in oppose votes are crucial for re-drafting a rejected proposal. If feedback isn't provided to the proposer they don't have the context needed to re-draft their proposal, this grinds the proposal process to a complete halt.
- A proposal needs a 75% approval rating or higher to pass, meaning oppose votes outweigh approve votes 3-1. Oppose votes are thus much more influential because they signal that there is a problem with the proposal, this influence is only justified if it contributes back to the proposal process through feedback.
- A reason does not have to be an essay, feedback as simple as "X tag introduces Y problem" provides the proposer with enough context to re-draft their proposal. When one voter has voted oppose and included a reason with their vote, another voter that agrees with said reason may write "Agree with [voter]'s comments" in their oppose vote. The effort needed to include a reason in an oppose vote is thus minimal.
- The argument that OSM is a project run by volunteers on whom we can't impose rules has been brought up in prior discussion about this topic, though it's untrue. The Proposal process is full of rules for volunteers publishing proposals, it would not be unreasonable to introduce one rule for voters.
- Additionally the topic of why approve votes aren't required to include a reason as well has been brought up. The reason for this is that the reasons that could be included in an approve vote don't include feedback that could be used to re-draft a proposal. If a voter has feedback they will either vote abstain or oppose, not approve.
External Discussions
- [RFC] Meta Proposal – Require oppose votes to include a reason
- Contributor refuses to provide a reason for oppose vote. What to do?
Comments
Please comment on the discussion page.